04.04.2013 in Big Government, Featured, Government Regulations, Politics by Rick Manning 62

Obama’s pathway to gun confiscation

By Rick Manning – Elected officials in California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York have told the rest of America the truth about their vision for private ownership of firearms in America.

They want to eliminate it.

Only the most willfully blind believe that the politicians in these states would not have passed laws calling for the confiscation of firearms if not stopped by the recent landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Heller v. D.C., which affirmed individual Second Amendment constitutional rights by the narrowest 5-4 margin.

President Obama in his zeal to purge the nation of gun ownership is expected to travel to Connecticut to make another tearful plea for Congress to both pass a semi-automatic fire arm ban and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and New York Senator Chuck Schumer’s wolf in sheep’s clothes national background check legislation.

Obama could not choose worse optics if he is attempting to convince a majority of Senators who are skeptical of additional encroachments on the right to keep and bear arms to vote for his proposals, as the Connecticut backdrop should remind everyone of the draconian response just enacted by that state legislature.

Reid has already declared that the semi-auto ban has been defeated, even though he will allow it to come to a vote, so Obama’s only hope of an immediate legislative victory is the national background check proposal.

Yet by going to Connecticut, where background checks and gun bans predated Newtown, Obama reveals his true intentions.

It is not to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill, but rather to create a national database to lay the foundation for future confiscation of firearms.

Even the rhetoric surrounding the national background check itself is a canard.

How do we know this?

Since 1994, every individual purchasing a firearm through a retailer has already been subjected to a national background check with the records only legally retained for a set period of time after the purchase.  Over the years, this time frame for the destruction of the records has been a source of debate, but the records have always been required to be destroyed.

The new national background check proposal that career anti-gun ownership Senator Charles Schumer is attempting to shepherd through Congress would eliminate the destruction of these records.

This basic point was so central to what Obama, Reid and Schumer are trying to accomplish that they allowed a potential deal with Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn to fall apart over the issue of whether the records should be destroyed.

Let’s be clear.

This new national background check legislation is not designed to stop criminals from getting guns, it is designed to use the tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut to establish a national database of gun owners.

It would serve no other purpose except to allow the federal government to have a pathway to confiscate guns.

America’s eyes have been opened to what anti-firearm politicians want through their actions in California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York.  The cloak of reasonability has been lifted and the predator is bearing its teeth.

In those states, one U.S. Supreme Court Justice’s vote stood between the people and confiscation.

And one national election could easily change both a future Court vote reconsidering Heller and those in Congress on gun bans and confiscation.

This is why this Congress must defeat Obama, Reid and Schumer’s attempt to put a pathway to gun confiscation on the federal books under the guise of expanding a national background check.

It is also why any Member of Congress who supports the Obama, Reid and Schumer national background check bill is actually voting to allow the future confiscation of firearms.  There simply is no other justification for the inclusion of a permanent gun owner database within the bill.

Next week, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN will try to tell the American people that the vote in the Senate is about stopping future tragedies and having a national background check system.

Obama will stand in Connecticut and Colorado crying crocodile tears as he exhorts Congress to pass a national background check.

All of them know they are lying, and the true objective of the legislation.  Now, so do you.

Rick Manning (@RManning957) is the Vice President of Public Policy and Communications for Americans for Limited Government.

  • Fernando Hernandez

    I think that Obama and his gun confiscation cohorts should go out and do the deed themselves, and right away.

  • Shadow_58

    If these brainless S.O.B.’s spent as much time trying to fix the unemployment problem and forcing that da*n usurper out of the White house. This Country might recover.

  • jwatersphd

    Rick, your paranoia over “confiscation” is incredible. Do you think anyone really gives a damn about people with their piddly assault rifles in terms of overthrowing the government? They haven’t got the time to waste tracking down normal people and taking their guns away. What they do need is a way to find people who really do pose a danger to the citizenry when their use of a gun is involved. Why do you have a problem with that? Like all paranoia, of course there is some basis in reality; it could happen. But also like all paranoia, your view exemplifies a complete loss of perspective. If you don’t think the country being awash in lethally destructive firearms is a problem, you need to think again. As for the notion that “the only solution to a lunatic with a gun is a better person with a gun,” how about the guy in Kansas, who was well trained in use of guns, knew he could be a target, said he always had a gun with him and was ready to use it, yet he gets gunned down anyway. Even in the wild west, you surrendered your guns to the sheriff when you came into certain towns. Stop being an obstructionist and look for realistic solutions to this problem.

  • JimR

    jwaatersphd, your kind of thinking is just plain stupid and it is what has gotten us in this mess to begin with. You had better wake up now or one day you’ll wake up and say, damn, I was wrong but it will be too late.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.harrison.902266 Kevin Harrison

    this bs WILL start ANOTHER civil war it will be a cold day in before i roll over and play dead for these pig turds

  • jwatersphd

    we’re not in a mess except for being awash in guns with no way to regulate it. and really, i don’t have a fear about having my guns confiscated. they can barely keep track of my address.

  • JimR

    Again, if you think this country isn’t in a mess, I rest my case on your way of thinking.

  • jwatersphd

    fine with me. i’ve been pretty happy with things, and successful, for 67 years; i see no need to change now.

  • JimR

    Ok, then, why change the constitution?

  • jwatersphd

    Even the Supreme Court’s most right wing, originalist member, Scalia, said there is nothing unconstitutional about regulating firearms, and that the 2nd amendment does not mean anyone has the “right” to go out and purchase any kind of weapon he or she wants and do whatever he or she wants with it, without any kind of accountability or process involved. You also have a right to vote. That doesn’t mean you have a right to walk into any polling place you wish, wherever, whenever, and vote. It’s not “infringing” on your right to vote to expect you to register and live in the place where you’re voting, and it’s not infringing on your right to own a gun to have it registered and have checks on whether it’s safe for society for you to own it, and even to be able to track down who owns it if it’s used in a crime. If you read Scalia’s opinion in Heller, the only thing he found troublesome was the arbitrary ban on an entire class of firearms. He then gave a long list of the kinds of regulations that are entirely in accord with the Constitution, and why. If Scalia’s OK with it, as far as i’m concerned it passes even the most far-out right wing test. This is not an abstract, simple matter; we live in a complicated society and we did even back then. So, getting specific, what kind of change to the constitution do you think is being anticipated by background checks and gun registration?

  • JimR

    The right of the citizenry to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. Ring a bell?

    Also on the right to vote if you vote for the left like you probably do from the way you talk, even a dead man can vote and numerous times. That is the only way Oboner got elected the second time.I realize you will never concede that you are thinking just the way the radical left wants you to think. It will be much easier to rule people like you.

    Wake up man and think for yourself.
    I also realize it is futile talking to someone like you and I won’t argue about it with you anymore. I’ll just cling to my guns and my Bible and you can hang on to the left tit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bromac1 Mark S McKinney

    It’s not a paranoia, it’s a simple keeping with historical facts of what “could” happen! Obama is only a puppet himself. This is deeper than Newtown, Aurora, Columbine, etc; This is probably going to be more of an economic problem which will lead to chaos and civil unrest. BTW, Universal Background checks will be a “registration” and it will be considered an “infringement” that the 2nd Amendment says no to!!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Cohn/1329308176 Aaron Cohn

    Seems pretty clear cut what Republicans need to do. Expose the lie. Go on the Sunday talk shows and OFFER a national background check with the proviso the records must be destroyed. When the liberals reject it, it will be clear for all to see. Get somebody on “meet the press” with that Chuckie “where’s the camera?” Schumer to hash this one out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Cohn/1329308176 Aaron Cohn

    Does the saying “from my cold, dead hands” have any meaning to you?

  • jwatersphd

    Suit yourself. You haven’t advanced a single argument against what I’ve said, so it probably is unproductive to continue this. You’re just starting to become abusive. I hope you can settle down.

  • jwatersphd

    Oh, so who’s really behind this vast conspiracy? I thought Obama was the great usurper and so on. If he’s just a tool, maybe we ought to get to the bottom of it.

  • pduffy

    Here’s the deal. The man pushing this legislation is not eligible to hold the office of the president. Everything this man has signed, including all the unconstitutional executive orders are null and void. The naked truth is that we are not operating under a constitutional republic any more. This is the “elephant in the room” nobody wants to look at because it’s too painful and embarrassing to admit. This is the Roman Empire, and Cesar has taken control. The question remains: Who’s side are you on? The empire’s or liberty? When they come to take the guns will you just turn them in? Did we really expect that once Hitler, Stalin, Lennon, and Hirohito were destroyed that somebody wouldn’t try to resurrect that same tyranny here? The beast wasn’t killed, just wounded.

  • darrell_b8

    They don’t have the ‘balls’ to really legislate what they want; JOIN the NRA, and the other second amendment organizations; contribute to them often so they have the $$$ to help unelect as many Dems and RINO’s as possible in 2014; And for GOD”s sake, DON’T STAY HOME ON ELECTION DAY. You see what that got you in 2012!!!

  • http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ M. Simon
  • http://www.facebook.com/wayne.williams.5437923 Wayne Williams

    Damn! Get your emotions out of this and start using your head. Study history! Learn something on your own. Quit letting someone else do your thinking for you. Or else, keep being happily ignorant. After all, ignorance is bliss.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wayne.williams.5437923 Wayne Williams

    I’m just amazed how you keep insisting on being so ignorant. You really don’t have a clue. If there was some substance to your arguement, I’d be willing to listen, and so would others.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wayne.williams.5437923 Wayne Williams

    And that’s the problem. You don’t see. “There are none so blind as they who will not see.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/wayne.williams.5437923 Wayne Williams

    Take a minute to look up the definition of the word ‘infringed’. Then come back with a plausible argument.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wayne.williams.5437923 Wayne Williams

    Here’s an argument. Imagine you’re in bed, safe in your home. You hear someone trying to break into your house. You have no means of protecting yourself or your property because ‘uncle sugar’ discovered you had a DUI twenty years ago. Or maybe you got busted for smoking pot. He has determined that you ‘might’ be a risk because of your past history and has already confiscated your handgun “in the interest of public safety”. What will you do? Call the cops? Good idea, except the average response time for the police is over 5 minutes. A good burglar will have your house cleaned out in less time than that. Don’t believe me? Look it up. Maybe you can just hide in the closet or under the bed, except those are the first places where thieves look. You’re a law-abiding citizen relying on the government to protect you. Within a few minutes you’ll just be another statistic. As your life flashes before your eyes, you’ll probably remember this conversation. But for you it will be everlasingly too late.

  • jwatersphd

    If ignorance is bliss, why are you so upset?

  • jwatersphd

    Well, why don’t you give me a clue as to who it is behind all this? Simple question, no answer. Obama’s the president, but he’s supposedly just a tool. I’m not insisting on being ignorant. I read every day on these pages about how evil and clever Obama is, now I’m reading he’s a puppet. He can’t be both. Which is it? If there’s no substance behind pointing out a blatant contradiction, I think we’ve left logic completely behind.

  • jwatersphd

    Right, blind and successful and happy all these years. You’d think I would’ve run aground by now. Maybe tomorrow is the day that Obama will come and take my guns? Yeah, I’m sure that’s his big plan for the day.

  • jwatersphd

    OK, that’s a start. Here you go: Infringe: Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.); Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “infringe on his privacy.”
    So, are you contending that any regulation of weapons is unconstitutional? Any citizen has the absolute, unconstrained right to own any kind of weapon – bazooka, flamethrower, machine gun, tank, sword, taser, hand grenade, dynamite – and take it anywhere he or she wishes, no questions asked? Is that what you are contending?

  • jwatersphd

    Wayne, I have no problem with you wanting to have a gun to defend yourself, even if you smoked pot. I don’t know why I would, and, frankly, I think the idea that Obama is worried about you is pretty far fetched. What have you done to make that likely? And, for the most part, what we know about self defense is not very reassuring; consider what happened to the guy in where was it, Kansas, who bragged about being a soldier, armed, etc. – but suit yourself. I don’t know anyone who really has a problem with self defense. Also, I’m pretty sure that if the government wanted to round you up, your handgun, or, really, any weapon you could conceivably own, would not stop them. None of this translates into a conclusion that everyone has a right to own any kind of weapon he or she wants and do whatever he or she wants with it. Maybe it does not seem to you that such an idea is completely unworkable, but it does to me. Maybe in the old days, when everyone had a rifle and they were ready to be organized into a militia to defend against some other organized entity, regulation didn’t make any sense (although you were required to have one and have it ready to use and be able to use it, in many cases), but that’s hardly the situation these days. I don’t want people driving down my street in a tank, or bringing their bazooka or a hand grenade into my city council meeting. And I don’t think I should be expected to buy my own tank, machine gun, or whatever everywhere I go. Sorry, I just don’t see how that’s workable.

  • Michael G.

    Kind of sounds like you’re angry–but I agree…

  • FloridaJim

    As the slimy chuck Schumer and Barry Obama maneuver gun registration slowly through the labyrinth of the Constitution we must remember these same dolts prevent voter I.D. laws from halting their use of race in elections. Chicago and now everywhere is registering dead people and swarming election sites to stymie the election of anyone democrats don’t want. Democrats have become like Hitler with their controls of drink sizes, guns, elections, food, oil and gas, the economy, jobs there is nothing they can’t control better than the citizens, isn’t that “hitlerish”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/bob.turpen.9 Bob Turpen

    Disregarding the right of law abiding citizens will never solve the problem of gun violence toward their fellowman; all Americans must put politics aside and address the heart of the matter. Gun control is the latest issue to be debated solely in terms of fixed perceptions and with little examination of true facts. Washington politicians refuse to answer the question do gun control laws reduce crime in general and murder rates in particular?

    The first recorded laws on the books came from an original ten on a stone tablet. Two of the ten were “thou shall not steal” and
    “thou shall not kill.” How can laws be made simpler? Instead, politicians
    complicate our legal system by passing gun control laws that don’t control
    guns, but lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates to unarmed law
    abiding citizens. Then the politicians refuse to prosecute the violators of
    these crimes. Why is that?

    Factual studies show no reduction in gun associated crimes,
    including murder with even the most strict gun control laws. Ask the citizens
    of Chicago and Washington how safe they feel walking the streets in their
    neighborhood after dark. How can this happen? The gun grabbing zealots are
    quick to inform us that if no one had guns there would be few robberies and
    murders. The zealots choose the easy way out by disarming peaceful law abiding
    citizens and making them easy prey for the bad guys. For the past 75 years, gun
    control laws in America allow politicians to grandstand and the self-righteous
    to make a political statement. We see
    this on a daily basis as one politician after another, parades on television
    news. Even the Hollywood crowd gets in on the act.

    Washington politicians can cherry pick factual studies or
    cite studies that have been discredited. But the bulk of studies show gun
    control laws do not in fact control guns. They do not save lives but cost
    lives. If gun control worked, spoons could be banned and I’d weigh 175 pounds
    instead of 205. Connecticut politicians admit, their most recent “stringent gun
    control law” passed in that State would not have prevented the heinous murders
    of 26 at Sandy Hook this past December.

    “God made all men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.” This
    was said of the Sam Colt of “Colt 45” revolver fame. This meant a little guy
    was equal to any bully. It also means the gun can be the equalizer of their
    government if the government forgets it is the servant of the governed and not
    the master of the governed.

    The 2nd Amendment of our Constitution reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Could “gun control” today really be masked as something
    more sinister? Guns are a handy tool for self-defense. Rifles are fun for
    hunting and sport shooting. The Founding Fathers did not enshrine the right to
    keep and bear arms for those purposes. The 2nd Amendment is to protect US from
    OUR own. . . . OUR own government. The Founders knew from prior experience, the
    country could slide into tyranny over time unless checked by its citizens who
    had the means to protect themselves from such tyranny.

    Senators like Dianne Feinstein must be brought up to date
    on the word “infringed” in the 2nd Amendment of OUR CONSTITUTION. Senator
    Feinstein from California, one of the leaders of this crusade to make the
    citizenry helpless, is the self-appointed expert on weaponry. According to
    Feinstein, “we need to ban the assault rifle because of that scary hangy down
    thingy (magazine, clip) that holds those shell (cartridges) things and that
    scary looking pipe looking thingy (suppresser) on the end of the barrel.” Now
    the Senator didn’t actually say this, but neither is she the expert on guns
    like she thinks she is. She is more of an expert in shooting the bull.

    What I’m about to say refers to those in Washington (the city) like Senator Feinstein, who represent us. The times of today remind me of the humorist, author and artist, Claire Wolfe who wrote, “America is at that awkward stage; it’s too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.” The humorist’s comment could certainly be on target.

  • Mike A

    Are you really this stupid to believe this drivel? You do realize that since people are supposed to register their guns and obtain licenses that there is already a database of gun owners that has been in existence for at least the last 20 years, if not longer? Has anyone come to grab Smeagull’s precioussss gunsss yet?

  • Mike A

    How is someone that was legally elected to the office twice a usurper? Remember, there was gerrymandering and hanky-panky in both the 2000 and 2004 elections that put W into office. On the contrary, there was nowhere near as much in either 2008 or last year. You’re just pissed because your lily-white idiot wasn’t handed the election by Karl Rove’s system-rigging.

  • Mike A

    When John Lennon was destroyed? Besides writing some songs calling for peace and understanding, what did he do? Hirohito was nothing more than a figurehead until he called for the Japanese people to lay down their weapons at the end of the war.

    As for the current holder of the office, how, when he was born in Hawaii, is he not eligible for the office? He’s a legal United States citizen that was born on American soil and is over the minimum age of 35. He holds DUAL citizenship, just like John McCain, except McCain was born in Panama. So he is not eligible to be president.

  • Mike A

    Let’s not forget the SEAL the was recently shot and killed at a gun range, with other gun owners and SEALS hanging out. How did having a few other “good guys with guns” work out for him?

    Amazing. Someone with a functioning brain on one of these tin foil hat idiot sites. Hard to believe.

  • Shadow_58

    Young Man, if your that damn stupid, don’t expect me to educate you concerning The United States Constitution and The Federal Law. Get off your sorry liberal as* and do some research.

  • Mike A

    Mark, don’t you already, by law, have to register your guns and obtain a permit to own and carry them? Or, are you owning a carrying a weapon in violation of the law, like a criminal?

  • Mike A

    JimR: Can you provide actual, verifiable evidence that dead people voted, and multiple times in this last election? I highly doubt it.

  • Mike A

    Actually, if you’ve been convicted of a DUI, you’re NOT a law-abiding citizen. You’re a felon. And a misdemeanor pot conviction doesn’t bar you from gun ownership. I know. I have 2. And guns of my own.

    Maybe if you’d been smart and properly secured your house, that thief wouldn’t have gotten in. I find a baseball bat a good way to let a thief know he’s not wanted in my house. It also ensures that he gets to go to prison for trying to enter my house.

    The difference is I have respect for human life, even those that really don’t deserve it. I’d rather preserve it than take it. You, pitiably, would rather take it. I wonder……..what would your ‘god’ think about that?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jwatersphd James H Waters Phd

    Let’s go back to more basics in this discussion. The 2nd amendment says there can be no “infringement” on the right of “the people” to bear arms. That seems pretty simple. What is a reasonable person to advocate, based on that? It can hardly be that any one “of the people” can own and “bear” any type of “arm” in any circumstance. E.g.: One of “the people” can be arrested and jailed wrongly, sometimes absurdly so. Yet, if he/she has a gun, it’s going to be confiscated and his “right” to “bear” it is going to be “infringed” while he’s in custody and in jail, which could be a long time given some circumstances. It’s not difficult to argue that being in jail is one of places where one might reasonably need self defense, or where one might be subject to “government” injustices that might seem, to some, to warrant armed insurrection. Is it “unconstitutional” to “infringe” his “right to bear arms?” This is the very government the tea party claims is tyrannical. It’s easy to come up with any number of other instantiations of reductio ad absurdum that indicate that a simple-minded, literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment can hardly be practical, or even correct.Taking it a little further, I, as well as number of other people, think the Founding Fathers were an amazingly intelligent and thoughtful group, and they could have hardly have intended, whether they wrote it down at the time, or not, that such an interpretation would be regarded as determinative, to be rigidly maintained. Thus, the question I was asked, by someone else, “what is it you don’t get about ‘the right to bear arms shall not be infringed'” is, legitimately, “a very great number of things.” Just for variety, let’s start with “who are ‘the people'”?

  • pduffy

    I refer to Stalin and Lennon – the founders of the communist USSR, not John Lennon the singer. It appears you are ignorant of history, and also believe that Barry Sorobarka (AKA Barak Obama), was born in Hawaii. There is no evidence to support this other than the media, and a fake electronic birth certificate posted on the internet. Even his own bio said, “Born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia”, when his publicist marketed him before he ran for the U.S. senate. You can continue to believe the ‘myth’ that he was born in Hawaii, but you choose this belief based on what you want to believe rather than the evidence – why? Because you want what this man promises to give you, some sort of political justice based on a perceived wrong, and to that end, you are willing to cast aside all truth to achieve this goal. In the end, you will end up with nothing because you loved a lie rather than the truth.

  • pduffy

    You said, “. What they do need is a way to find people who really do pose a danger to the citizenry when their use of a gun is involved.”

    Why would they need to “find” these people? They are the ones that released them back into society after they committed PREVIOUS CRIMES where they were not punished in the first place for misusing a gun. Otherwise, they would not have to do a “background check” to find them? If criminals were properly punished for their crimes, they would not be in society in the first place. LIBERALISM is the cause of all of these ills.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jwatersphd James H Waters Phd

    You might be interested to read that one purpose of “the militia” (which was essential to the security of a free state) was to put down insurrections; it’s in the constitution. Even if the 2nd amendment does anticipate people forming militias, which we don’t have any more, to attack the government, who’s going to run them? How many do we get to have? (How’s it working in Syria?) I hope you really are not relying on owning a gun to stop the government from doing things you don’t like. The day when that was even close to possible is long past. Let’s leave militias aside for now. If you don’t agree with a parking ticket, do you think the 2nd amendment means you get to shoot the person who gave it to you or the judge who presides at your trial if you go that far? What about if it happens over and over again, because a parking patrol person has it “in” for you? OK to shoot them then? At what point to you get to “protect” yourself from the government (usually the police, these days) by force of arms? Are you really grieving the fact that you can’t take the law into your own hands? How would you feel if others did the same? Does everyone get to make his or her own choice about when that’s right?

  • jwatersphd

    Well, it’s a little more complicated than that, isn’t it? Does having committed a crime – any crime – even one using a gun, say, for instance, doing target practice where it’s illegal (and maybe not even knowing that), mean a person is no longer one of “the people” that have a right to bear arms? Are you suggesting that everyone who commits a crime, using a gun or not, should never again “be in society,” like the target practice person? Can we only tell if someone poses a danger if they’ve committed previous crimes? Anyone who doesn’t agree with all this is a “liberal?”

  • pduffy

    It’s not complicated. You can’t lose your rights to bear arms unless you are a FELON. Target practice in the wrong place could cause you to pay damages, or a fine, but that person would not be ‘background checked’, and denied their 2nd amendment rights. If you commit a crime with a gun, and kill somebody, that person should never again allowed to enter society, because they should have been put to death, but LIBERALISM says no. Permanently removing that person from society solves the problem now doesn’t it? No background check needed for a dead man. Isn’t this the reason why you want a background check, because you don’t want the murderer put to death, but rather released back into society where they can do harm, and kill others, and then rely on a mere ‘background check’ as a prevention measure? Liberalism is the root cause of the problem, and you liberals don’t want to do what is really necessary to protect the innocent by punishing the crime according to the deed, but would rather blame all of society, and freedom as the cause, when tolerance of evil is really the issue.

  • Pingback: Teeth, bared » Cold Fury

  • Inge Vogel

    Republicans need to filibuster because the game of words, if you support the
    2ndAmendment is smothered by the Obama Press. Just stand up and wear a catheter!

  • ltfbhh

    Under Section 932, paragraph(C) of Harry Reid’s S649, it is illegal to sell or transfer a firearm to anyone who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802))”. This would exempt President Obama from ever being allowed to legally receive a firearm, according to his own admission of illegal drug use.

    In addition, the penalties for violation of this law, if enacted, would require that Attorney General Eric Holder spend the rest of his life in prison! Of course we all know he will never receive punishment of any kind for his illegal gun running scheme that cost dozens of people their lives.

  • Barbara Borden

    LOL, guess you DO have to explain it.

  • daskon

    All in all, the Senate actually doesnt have the power to change the constitution, or the admendments by itself. It must involve all government parties, and all the states. Anything they do otherwise, although never contested, is against the constitution. Dont believe me, try reading it, especially the part about changes or infringments. Our government has slowly over the years, taken more and more power. As for the gun measure, how can someone owning or not owning a gun, affect you individually. Dont come across with this keep me from being shot crap, because you have a 10fold more chance of dying from any one of countless ways than you do by gunfire. Lots of people die everyday, the news media just glamorizes the gun deaths to get more attention. The gun measures real effect on you whether you own or hate guns, is that one of your rights is being trampled on. Today guns, tomorrow, what ever they deem necessary, The precident will already be set by the gun issue.

  • Cliff

    From reading the comments, jwatersphd and others of his mindset are overlooking a bigger picture. WHY would the Fed ever want to confiscate guns? The economy. Look at all the international riots over the past few years. It always comes back to a government that has stretched itself well beyond its means, and the populace finally snaps. Our Fed is steering our ship on the exact same course, pedal to the metal. They KNOW we’re sunk, it’s simply a matter of how long they can keep the rest of us from feeling it. When America crashes, it will be the conservatives leading the outcry (because we’ve been screaming about the $#^%@ iceberg all along), and it just so happens the conservatives are the ones that are armed. Take that threat away, and the riots will be much easier to stomp out.

    Now, how exactly is this paranoia? Sounds pretty darn logical to me. Anyone that denies the very real possibility of some violent riots in the near future pretty much has their head under a rock.

  • Poppo

    Don’t forget to mention Colorado. Our left wing big government protectorate has been passing gun laws here right and left since Sandy Hook. The sponsors of these bills don’t even know what a ‘Magazine’ is, but banned them anyway!

  • MRBOWTIE

    Truly – “Phd” DOES stand for “piled high and deep”! Your analogy’s are pathetic – what does the situation in Syria have to do with the situation in America? And the analogy about your traffic ticket – that is so inapplicable and inane that a high school debate student could do better! And when do we get to protect ourselves from our own government by force of arms? So easy – when the government attempts to force unconstitutional changes on us such as confiscation of firearms. No, we’re not “grieving the fact that we can’t take the law into our own hands – we absolutely abhor the idea of having to revolt against our own government, but – “”The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson. I have no objections to others joining the revolution, IF that should become necessary, but that has to be their decision. In the same vein, everyone has the same right to make his or her own choice – I suspect if they’re wrong in their choice, it’s gonna get mighty lonesome in their revolution. Finally, one more quote for you, from Samuel Adams: “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

    ht to defend them in the best manner they can.”
    Samuel Adams

  • http://www.facebook.com/bromac1 Mark S McKinney

    No, we do not register our guns. We could purchase a gun legally without going through a 4473 if we purchase from an individual. By law the 4473 stays in the possession of the local gun shop and a call to the FBI for a background check does not tell the serial number or type of firearm (other than long gun or pistol) No registration is required. In Indiana a permit is not required to own a firearm but a permit is required to carry. I worked at a gun shop for 4 years. NO REGISTRATION required!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bromac1 Mark S McKinney

    I think the UN caries a lot of weight. And I believe George Soro carries the most weight with Obama. I’ll stay away from conspiracy thoughts of the illuminati. :) Some Republicans are just as guilty as Obama. The Patriot Act DHS is in my opinion, an unconstitutional entity that should have expired, but was continued through Obama. A dangerous issue!

  • http://www.facebook.com/bromac1 Mark S McKinney

    History has proven, registration leads to confiscation. Which becomes infringement. That’s why we have to stop registration before the latter. Cannot be tolerated. Laws are on the books on the misuse of firearms that do not infringe on ownership. So that that argument does not apply. Could I guess and say 95% firearm owners are responsible owners. Maybe even a greater percentage. The new laws they are trying to implement affect the 95% who don’t need it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bromac1 Mark S McKinney

    The type weapons you mentioned are already regulated in 1934. But can still be legally purchased via a stronger background check (already on the books) and a $200.00 stamp per weapon. Can only be purchased through a Class III dealer. Again, the true term of “Assault Weapons” (full auto) have been regulated since1934.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jwatersphd James H Waters Phd

    So is the right to own bazookas, flame throwers, nerve gas , and silencers infringed, or not? Can you “bear” them wherever you wish? Is regulation always infringement?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jwatersphd James H Waters Phd

    The constitution lists suppression of insurrections as one of the duties of militias.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jwatersphd James H Waters Phd

    The situation in Syria is applicable because it seems the argument is that anyone has the right to form a militia to lead an insurrection whenever he or she decides there is tyranny. So the question becomes, what if the T Party wants one, and the pro-abortion or pro-marijuana people want one? Or the Evangelists and the atheists. Your abusive language does not obscure the weakness of your arguments or thinking. So, you “abhor” having to revolt but you think it has to be done from time to time because Jefferson said that. Well – how often? Who decides? Oh, I see, “everyone has the right to make” the choice . . . So, it’s chaos, huh? Do you really think Evanagelists and atheists are going to decide at the same time to join forces against . . . . well, what? So think again about Syria. And what you’ve got there are religiously-based divisions vs a brutal dictator. How’s it working out?

    Do you really think you are going to prevent “confiscation” because you’ve got a few hunting rifles, etc? And who is “you” anyway? Got your troops in line and well-regulated? How about the guy in the next state or town? Talk about lonely. Going up against the national guard, etc? Prevent it by law instead. It may be true that registration would allow confiscation, but we do live in a country of laws so it does not have to be. No one gives a crap about your hunting rifles, or your pistol for self defense, basically. But a lot of people, me included, would/will do everything we can to prevent some right- or left-wingers from assembling their own militia to “revolt” against things they’ve decided are “tyranny.” In fact, you might be surprised that a lot of people would be against your self-styled revolution by armed force to prevent confiscation – it could be a civil war, if you ever got yourselves together. Given the type of morality these right-wing groups espouse, it would be more likely like the anti-Taliban actions around the world. Substitute Christian Law for Sharia Law and i think you’ve about got it. Like to get on a list for confiscation and eradication? Go ahead and form your “militia.” If you’re planning to do it over gun registration laws, keep in mind that over 90% of the people think that’s a good idea. Those are kind of long odds – why not go with registration and background checks and a reminder that confiscation is not allowed under the 2nd amendment. Of course, you’ll need courts to enforce that . . . .but who needs a stinkin’ government any?

    Before you start giving me tips on arguments and high school level thinking, and trying to be cute with my on-line name, how about if you actually address the points I am making? You blustering only makes it harder to see what you are actually saying.

  • Pingback: RED ALERT – Purpose Of Senate Gun Law Is Creation Of Criteria And Registry For Confiscation – Obama: ‘I Don’t Believe People Should Be Able To Own Guns’ « Pat Dollard

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily